Re: [wg-review] [DNDEF] a few comments

[Eric Dierker <Eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

If ICANN, the "AJ" can't do it then who is going to do it? Or is it "intended"
that it don't get done?

I have this vague notion of nations of law not of men?  I also have this vague
notion of Alice in Wonderland. Who benefits from chaos? Who benefits by stability?

I am going to church where I will find something more tangible and solid to
grapple with - Faith.

Sincerely,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Joop, Sotiris, Greg,
>
> Great!
> And what about the ones who coined the domain name concept?
> Do we own the world? If yes may could we embark into a Tresor hunt?
> My own date is sept 1978. Mail to Italcable and to Bundespost.
> Other contenders Bob Trehin, Joe Rinde, Mike Rude, Paolo Popescu.
>
> Now what about "members name", "partner name", "generic name",
> "formated name", "dynamic name", "telephone name", "mail name"...
> and "user name".
> Jefsey
>
> On 09:14 04/02/01, Joop Teernstra said:
> >At 16:03 2/02/01 -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > >> <snip>
> > >> Courts, universities, the U.N., the USG can't define it in one
> > >> language.  It is like defining Theos.
> > >> <snip>
> > >
> > >I disagree Eric.  I think we can define it, and we must do so ASAP.  I
> > >believe a domain *is* Property.
> > >In fact, I believe a domain *is* Intellectual Property, the
> > >ICANN-sanctioned UDRP makes this an ipso facto
> > >statement (albeit indirectly).  The question I have, is simple:  "Who
> > >does the property belong to by right?"
>
> Well, Sotiris, what a lot of unassumed statements in a few lines!
>
> - yes we can define it. A definitition is a description, but neither a
>    law nor a belief. You can make many laws or creeds over a definition.
>
> - only the definition of what a DN is may help you determining wich
>    parts of the DN may relive from IP.
>
> - the UDRP is a stand-alone procedure applied by contract to
>    DN which per se has nothing to do with DN (please read the UDRP
>    document and come back withtheir definition of the DN).
>
> - that ICANN has not sanctionned but created the UDRP as legal (? ;-) )
>    protection does not change anything to the nature of the DN. It
>    only lead people to believe they are proected by it while they are not.
>
> As soon as any one claims there is a property in the DN, my lawyer
> will claim a chare in it (as several people of my Tymnet network culture
> and many others of Vint/Jon's and others from Berkley's culture). A
> royalty of $1/year per DN would be good enough: I am ready to make a
> Trust with Joe, Bob and their wifes, Jon's heirs, Vint familly and a few
> others. Good money for our heirs 50 years+ after we are all dead (this
> is why I quoted Paolo: he only rose the problem but he is probably
> the youngest ... long before Internet peole came with a saxon semantic).
>
> > >In other words, does it belong to someone who invented or coined it? or
> > >does it belong to somebody else?
> > >The registration of a domain name can be compared to creation.  What is
> > >created (i.e. a domain) did not
> > >exist before this act.  The service aspect of the act itself is provided
> > >by ICANN, but not the actual *creative*
> > >keystrokes.  Not to mention, the knowledge and foresight that went into
> > >such creation.
> > >
> >
> >I subscribe to this point of view. The act of Naming is a creative act. The
> >DN is its Autor's  Intellectual Property.
>
> Joop, the first intellectual property was to create the DN concept. Then
> possibly to develop the DNS system (but there are alternatives).
>
> >A Domain that is developed into a well connected and well-known website and
> >becomes a Brand, is certainly also its owner's economic property.
> >
> >What concerns me is that by trying to "define" a Domain Name now, we are
> >forgetting that both the service and the control over Domain Names are
> >still very fluid processes.
>
> The target is not to define a Domain Name but to define what is a domain name.
> There is a big difference between saying that a given Road Sign indicates
> New-York and saying what a road sign may be...
>
> >"Defining" a DN (as in "legal definition")  is therefore not only a
> >semantic process, but also a political one.
> >Courts the world over, will do the defining for us. Legislators will fill
> >in the blanks. We have to be part of this process.
>
> Like leaving courts and laws saying the skyis yellow, brown, green, etc...
>
> >Registries derive a great deal of power (and income) from the totally
> >arbitrary idea that DNames need yearly "refreshing" against payment of a fee.
>
> This is an arbitrary statement. The operations of a DN cost money.
> There are enough cases of:
> - multy-years subscriptions
> - free registrations
> - new developments
> to show that what you quote is just a given situation.
> I acknowledge ICANN wrongly endorsed it because of a real definition
> of the DN not pemitting to fully grasp what is at stake..
>
> >Therefore, registries and registrars will not readily "define" DN as
> >property of the registrant.
>
> They have nothing to do in the process. It is either consensus
> or law. It is acknowledgement of the real nature (as per the definition
> of the DN, if that definition permits to deduct it) or a legal decision.
>
> >Registrants, on the other hand, looking at the contract they are forced to
> >sign with the registrar, feel very insecure with the idea that their Domain
> >is not really *theirs* to own, but is treated as a kind of rental property
> >from which they may be evicted via UDRP or due to non-timely payment of the
> >yearly fee.
>
> True, this is why there must be a contract. What is currently signed
> has absolutely no legal value since it is related to something not
> defined, not even described as a good or a as service and said to
> be in a moving environment which therefore may change its very
> nature daily (which bythe way is the case).
>
> >The current situation, however, may change as Registrants will get their
> >representation in ICANN and their input in the registry contracts.
>
> Sorry, but I fail to see what it may change.
> - that peripheral actors may change their relations
> - that a dwindling part of the concerned bodies
> - themselves without any established legitimacy even by the USG
> do what ever they want has no impact.
>
> Even in considering the ICANN's world only, that 2.5% of the TLDs
> organize themselves in a way or an other has no legal impact. We
> are here in law and international treaties. The number and the
> sovereignty of the participants is to be considered, not their
> relative weight.
>
> >This is the process that needs to be speeded up.
>
> As a general review on this.
>
> I am afraid that this process is under scrutiny now by the USG
> and by most of the Govs. because the DNSO failed the task of
> providing clear definitions, policy statements, credible procedures.
>
> And we all know that this failure only comes from the NC being
> elected by "constituencies", people fighting to protect seats. We
> should stop considering GAC as a set of blinded fools.
>
> Should a few persons on this WG-Review had not been confused
> in not accepting the difference between the working (SIG/Centers
> of Interest) and the voting (constituency)  parts of  BC, ccTLD,
> IDNH, DNDEF, etc...  as initially initially introduced by Karl and
> supported by some Govs. we would not have this huge thread
> upon us. I am afraid the days of the "American Joke" have flown
> ("AJ" is a private GAC Member desription of the ICANN).
>
> This is why at this stage I think we need a recess. For an effort
> to quickly understand, think and respond to the mostly Govs and
> to some extent large commercial groups effort we see every
> where now. And find new net-democracy protection solutions.
>
> Greg, I now see this WG-Review has been under professional
> attack to be confused and unproductive. I feel very sorry for all
> the efforts so many people spent here.
>
> Jefsey
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html